How about separate moderator accounts?

[Zhongyongdaoist]

While thinking about the most resent problem with moderation here, one issue that has occurred before, did stand out to me and that was the complaint that one party was a moderator and also that moderator type admonitions were interspersed among more personal responses, and that the non "official" party could not block them.

 

What I am proposing is the idea that people who are filling the office of moderators be given a special moderator account separate from their personal account from which and to which all "official" business should be undertaken.  Some people and I suspect more than the average number here have issues with authority figures and that may cause issues to flare up more than the might otherwise.

 

There are of course details that would need to be worked out, but this might be helpful and I thought I would put it before the forum for consideration.

 

ZYD

Edited January 16, 2016 by Zhongyongdaoist

[Flolfolil]

from the moderator perspective i think it would be very annoying to log in and out of accounts, and if you browse with your primary posting account then you wouldn't see alerts from reports

 

a solution to this would be to make both accounts moderators, so they still see reports.......but it would slow down moderator action even further

 

and then there's the issue of moderator anonymity.  if they have more generic names like mod1, mod2 etc, then there are always going to be those people who cry "who did this they are evil and the public deserves to know"

 

so for accountability reasons, the mod accounts would have to go and , and that negates the entire reason for giving them separate accounts in the first place

 

good idea, GREAT idea actually....in theory.  in practice i dont think it would work out unless something can solve that second problem

[dawei]

What I am proposing is the idea that people who are filling the office of moderators be given a special moderator account separate from their personal account from which and to which all "official" business should be undertaken.

 

You stole some of my thunder as I was formulating a thread to ask folks some comments

 

Interesting idea which we'll have to think on.

 

Some people and I suspect more than the average number here have issues with authority figures and that may cause issues to flare up more than the might otherwise.

 

Yes, I think this is an inherent problem... how does a staff person continue to chat as a regular member and change hats; sometimes in a thread they are posting in. 

 

There is a common mod account which has been used in the past but lacks transparency.

 

My personal solution is simply to post less when on staff and observe more.   I've not asked or enforced it as I'm not sure it is fair to impose on staff.

 

from the moderator perspective i think it would be very annoying to log in and out of accounts, and if you browse with your primary posting account then you wouldn't see alerts from reports

 

a solution to this would be to make both accounts moderators, so they still see reports.......but it would slow down moderator action even further

 

and then there's the issue of moderator anonymity.  if they have more generic names like mod1, mod2 etc, then there are always going to be those people who cry "who did this they are evil and the public deserves to know"

 

so for accountability reasons, the mod accounts would have to go and , and that negates the entire reason for giving them separate accounts in the first place

 

good idea, GREAT idea actually....in theory.  in practice i dont think it would work out unless something can solve that second problem

 

Good points and issues I would raise as part of our talks.  Thanks

[Kar3n]

The identity of a mod should be irrelevant. If they are doing their job correctly, any action taken would be due to a breach of forum rules and not based on personal views.

[Apech]

An account called Moderation Team or some such already exists for this specific purpose.  It was created because usually moderation actions follow discussion but whoever carries out the jointly agreed action often gets attacked personally.

[Marblehead]

Well, Damn!!!  I agree with everyone.

 

And Kar3n's comment stands all on its own.  To be beyond good and evil.  (Sorry, I just had to say that.)

[Marblehead]

An account called Moderation Team or some such already exists for this specific purpose.  It was created because usually moderation actions follow discussion but whoever carries out the jointly agreed action often gets attacked personally.

Yes, whoever carries out the action will always get the blame.  Apech, you know full well how that feels.

[Apech]

Yes, whoever carries out the action will always get the blame.  Apech, you know full well how that feels.

 

 

I still have a few scars

[soaring crane]

The sixth sense is the sense of entitlement.

[dawei]

I still have a few scars

 

But cats seem to heal themselves quite well

[Marblehead]

The sixth sense is the sense of entitlement.

I could probably agree with that statement if I were to discuss it.

[Michael Sternbach]

You stole some of my thunder as I was formulating a thread to ask folks some comments

 

Interesting idea which we'll have to think on.

 

 

 

Yes, I think this is an inherent problem... how does a staff person continue to chat as a regular member and change hats; sometimes in a thread they are posting in. 

 

There is a common mod account which has been used in the past but lacks transparency.

 

My personal solution is simply to post less when on staff and observe more.   I've not asked or enforced it as I'm not sure it is fair to impose on staff.

 

 

 

Good points and issues I would raise as part of our talks.  Thanks

 

The problem arose because my moderating actions on another thread lead to the immediate opening of another, with the OP heavily criticizing me. But it initially didn't seem to warrant an "official" response, on the other hand, I didn't want to leave it unanswered, so I opted for a more personal kind of response. The OP's harsh reactions in the form of rule violations then compelled me to put the moderator hat back on. That was problematic, of course.

[Marblehead]

The problem arose because my moderating actions on another thread lead to the immediate opening of another, with the OP heavily criticizing me. But it initially didn't seem to warrant an "official" response, on the other hand, I didn't want to leave it unanswered, so I opted for a more personal kind of response. The OP's harsh reactions in the form of rule violations then compelled me to put the moderator hat back on. That was problematic, of course.

Yes, I saw you working with that.  You did better than I likely would have.

 

But I do agree that if a moderator is in a heated argument with a member it should not be that moderator who takes moderation actions.  It will always give bad impressions and understandings.

[Apech]

I think distinguishing between personal comments as a member and moderation actions/notifications is very important.  Sometimes as a moderator you have to be cautious about entering into long debates because you get sucked into the grey area between the two.  It's not a pretty place to be.

[Michael Sternbach]

Yes, I saw you working with that.  You did better than I likely would have.

 

But I do agree that if a moderator is in a heated argument with a member it should not be that moderator who takes moderation actions.  It will always give bad impressions and understandings.

 

I basically agree. What made the situation more difficult was that the other moderator was already not available any more (he had only filled in temporarily), and the new one hadn't taken up the job yet. So I was the only moderator as such. This situation was remedied immediately after the incident.

 

Aside from that, getting nuked and shot at always spurs me into action.

 

It hopefully goes without saying that, as a moderator, I respect any sincere discussion even of highly controversial topics. But glorifying fascism is clearly a no-no on this forum. Insofar, I stand by the action I took.

[Apech]

Yes ... and once again I salute the new guys - for what they are about receive may the Lord make them truly thankful.

[RiverSnake]

Sometimes you gotta let the pimp hand fly.

[Basher]

What if......a Mod posts something "contentious"...somebody takes umbridge.....another Mod then re-visits the thread & realises that they've breached the Rules!!

 

Would the original Mod be asked to give themselves a dressing down, or Ban themselves temporarily ?

 

[Apech]

What if......a Mod posts something "contentious"...somebody takes umbridge.....another Mod then re-visits the thread & realises that they've breached the Rules!!

 

Would the original Mod be asked to give themselves a dressing down, or Ban themselves temporarily ?

 

 

..or maybe give themselves a dressing gown instead?

 

[dawei]

What if......a Mod posts something "contentious"...somebody takes umbridge.....another Mod then re-visits the thread & realises that they've breached the Rules!!

 

Would the original Mod be asked to give themselves a dressing down, or Ban themselves temporarily ?

 

 

There are plenty of stories which could be told 

 

Staff has been warned (in the back), removed, suspended and at least one was banned.

 

They are not above the law but being a target on the board, we try to resolve such issues and keep things going... but in some cases, the resolution is just to go back to being a member.

[Basher]

Hope that one day they'll be a Book/Film/TV Series......"Dao Bums (Uncut)"....a behind the scenes look at what really happens !!

[Apech]

Hope that one day they'll be a Book/Film/TV Series......"Dao Bums (Uncut)"....a behind the scenes look at what really happens !!

 

 

Tales from the Dungeon.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Shanlung has returned and has made perfectly clear why I proposed this:

 

While thinking about the most resent problem with moderation here, one issue that has occurred before, did stand out to me and that was the complaint that one party was a moderator and also that moderator type admonitions were interspersed among more personal responses, and that the non "official" party could not block them.

What I am proposing is the idea that people who are filling the office of moderators be given a special moderator account separate from their personal account from which and to which all "official" business should be undertaken. Some people and I suspect more than the average number here have issues with authority figures and that may cause issues to flare up more than the might otherwise. (Emphasis added, ZYD)

in this quote:

 

I was trying to stay clear of him which was why I wanted to put him into my ignore bin.
So my mistake in stating that intention that got him angry so he can exercise his might? (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

As I noted this has been an issue before and some may remember “Buttercup” who had a similar complaint about this situation in regard to a moderator, I remember the moderators name, but I don't see it as relevant here because I don't see either that person or Michael as being directly responsible for the problem, only that giving their personal accounts high level status makes it impossible to use the ignore feature to not have their ideas thrust upon one. Granted the “ignore” function is not as useful as self-control, but if someone can't resist using the “peak” option they can only blame themselves and not the board. As he does here:

 

Since the Admin and owner here found it fit to make him concierge and I do not wish to offend the Admin and owner, (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

Myself I was raised on a simple motto:

“Sticks and stone may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”

With the implication that they can only hurt me if I let them, with the stronger implication that they could only hurt me if I was of “weak” enough character to allow them to hurt me. Personally, I simply refuse to give another person that much power over me and would council other people to do the same, but that doesn't mean that the board should do what it can to avoid this type of confusion of personal opinion and official power which seems to be a strong part of the problem here.

 

Please, to make completely clear, I am not taking any sides in the details of the dispute, only pointing out an aspect of it in which the board and its "admin and owner" are implicitly complicit and which it might be a good idea to avoid the possibility of such an impression as much as may be practically possible.

 

Such an impression was also part of the charges of the Mo Pai advocates that their was a conspiracy against them, and the board has had to take a lot of remedial action to repair the damage that was done by that misapprehension.

 

It seems to me better to avoid such problems in the first place.

 

[Brian]

I encountered a similar situation with the Bum named TaoMaster, who lamented that he was unable to block my questions and observations due to my role as Moderator. I attempted to address this by biting my tongue and simply not responding to him any longer. (In that case, he continued his decompensation, started sending me bizarre rants via PM and soon got himself banned for egregious rules violations but I mention him because my role imposed upon me the responsibility to modify my own behavior.)

[dawei]

It seems to me better to avoid such problems in the first place.

 

I do agree with the fact that the interspersing confused the situation and can/does result in that staff member becoming the target of criticism.   To our fault, at the time, we were short-handed and even I was a bit busy.   We have since talked more about such situations.    

 

Although Shanlung has misplaced some of his angst about this, meaning staff are generally much more detached than they get credit for, the idea of a separate 'moderator' account could help in some situations.

 

I will give just enough history about a separate moderator account and its implications.

 

At one time, there were no moderators... and men walked the plains and women picked berries... after the upgrade to grass huts and community living, the elders (moderators) were formed to decide the tribe issues.   At times, it took quite a bit of discussion to reach any agreement and often by the time of it, the issue was already old... they appointed an independent messenger (independent moderator account) to announce outcomes.   Then a tribunal (Admin) was put in place and it was felt that more transparency should be used and the elders should just announce the GROUP decisions.   The messenger remained for a while but was used less and less...

 

That separate moderator account still exists but I believe there was a desire for staff transparency... that their group decisions could be announced by any one of them.

 

I'm not necessarily against its use and it likely would of been better particularly when short-handed but it has not been used for quite some time now.   If mods use that, then the only transparent one is the Admin... and that's ok with me...

 

As I have more staff on-board now, we can talk more about this.